This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and
PDF (comparable to original document
formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the
Antitrust Documents Group.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1996

AT
(202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REACHES SETTLEMENT WITH TEXAS TV NETWORK
AFFILIATES TO PUT AN END TO THEIR COLLUSIVE AGREEMENTS

WASHINGTON, D.C.  The Department of Justice reached a settlement today
with three Corpus Christi, Texas, television network affiliates that will put an
end to their unlawful agreements to jointly raise the prices they could obtain
from local cable television operators for the rights to retransmit their
broadcast programs.

The Department's Antitrust Division today filed an antitrust suit and
proposed consent decree in U.S. District Court in Corpus Christi, Texas, against:

Texas Television Inc., owner of KIII-TV channel 3 (ABC).

K-Six Television Inc., owner of KZTV-TV channel 10 (CBS).

Gulf Coast Broadcasting Company, owner of KRIS-TV channel 6 (NBC).

The complaint alleges that the three broadcasters promised each other they
would not formally sign with and release their signals to a cable operator until
the other two local broadcasters had also come to terms with that cable firm.
The broadcasters also promised each other that none would accept any deal that
gave it a competitive edge over the other two. Anne K. Bingaman,
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, said, "Television
broadcasters should understand that the 1992 Cable Act does not shield them from
the antitrust laws. They must not band together and collude in their dealings
with cable companies."

Under the 1992 Cable Act, cable operators for the first time were required
to obtain consent, called "retransmission rights," from broadcast stations before
they could distribute the broadcasters' programs to their cable subscribers.

Bingaman emphasized the importance and timeliness of today's action since a
new round of negotiations between cable companies and broadcast stations
nationwide will begin in a few months. The Cable Act requires that
retransmission rights be renegotiated every three years. This provision is not
affected by the recently enacted Telecommunications Act.

"This case should serve as a warning to broadcast stations around the
country as they begin this year's retransmission negotiations," Bingaman added.

Without their agreement, each of the three broadcasters would have had a
strong incentive to be the first to cut a deal with the cable companies. On the
effective date of the retransmission provision of the Act, cable systems stopped
carrying the signals of these broadcasters, since none had reached a
retransmission agreement. As a result, the broadcasters feared losing
advertising revenue, which is based on viewership, because their signals were now
reaching only over-the-air viewers.

The first broadcaster to sign with the cable firms would have begun reaching
both over-the-air and cable viewers and could earn higher ad revenues. If one
broadcaster reached agreement with the cable firms much earlier than the other
two, the advantage to that broadcaster could be even greater, if advertisers
deserted the other stations in order to reach a wider audience.

The Corpus Christi stations agreed that they would not compete against one
another in this way, and instead would present a united front to the cable firms.

Bingaman said that the case is also noteworthy because it illustrates that
government antitrust enforcement is evenhanded. The Division has brought actions
against certain cable companies in the past, but where cable firms are the
victims of an antitrust violation, the Division will not hesitate to act,
Bingaman added.

If approved by the court, today's proposed settlement would resolve the
Department's antitrust suit, and bar the broadcasters from entering into any
joint agreement relating to future sales of retransmission rights. To limit the
potential for such agreements, the settlement would also prohibit each
broadcaster from discussing with any other defendant any aspect of its
transactions with cable firms.